Family correlates of female adolescents' ego-identity development

ffou~tal of Ado&scence I985, 8, ~ 2

Family correlates of female adolescents' ego-identi development G E R A L D R. A D A M S

both social learning and s y m ~ l i c interaction indicate that parents can either facilitate or hinder positive growth. Therefore, to test the predictions that (a) more mature (moratorium and achieved) identity status parents would have daughters with more mature identities, and (b) that both ~ s i t i v e and n ~ a t i v e parenting s t y l ~ can be detected to differentiate between l~ss (diffu~d and foreclosed) and more mature identity status youths, 45 families (x45 subjects) were a ~ e s ~ d on parent-child relations and identity status formation. In ~ n t r a s t to much past research, parent--child relations were assessed from both the adolescents' and the parems' perspectives. T h e findings indicate that parental ident may have an effeca on the adolc.cent's identity formation ild relations differentiate between less and more mature female adolescent identities,

A growing body of research, using Marcia's (i966) operationalization of Erikson's (1956, i959)theoretical perspective on identity formation, has demonstrated that adolescence is associated with substantial changes in identity. In his operationalization of identity, Marcia (i966) has proposed four types of identity statuses° These four types of statuses differ according to the individual's experience with crisis or exploration and the type of commitment reported to occupational, political and religious values (ideological identity). Individuals who report no specific commitment nor a desire to establish one are categorized as b e i n g sed. A person who has made a commitment based upon parental expectations without having explored t her, diffused and foreclosed other options is in a foreclosure status, " adolescents constitute a nonc~sis group. Individuals who are currently seeking a commitment but have not yet completed their decisions are labeled as moratorium status. Finally, individuals who have engaged in an extensive exploration period and have arrived at their own committed perspectt:ves are categorized as identity achieved. Collectively, moratorium and identity achieved youths constitute a crisis (or exploration) ~ o u p . T h e crisis based Requests for reprints should be a d d r ~ d to: Gerald A d ~ , Department of Family and Human Deve nt, Utah State Unive~ity, ~ n , UT 843zz, U.S.A. ox4o-'z97z/85:c~ + ~4 ~3 o&o ~ ~ 5 ~ A~iation for the PsychiatricSxudyd Ad

70 G.R. ADAMS identity status groups are viewed as more mature forms of identity because they are based on a self-determination social process that r~ults in greater psychological complexity and self-efficacy. Substantial data supports the theoretical notion that diffused adolescents are inclined with time to advance to one of the two committed statuses (e.g. Marcia, I976; Waterman and Goldman, i976; Adams and Fitch, i98z ). Further research has shown that specific educational or social environments can enhance progressive identity development (Adams and Fitch, x983; Enright, Ganieve, Buss, Lapsely and Olson, i983) and that different parental socialization stvles may either enhance or hinder ego-identity formation (e.g. Josselson, I973," LaVoie, I976; Adams and Jones, i983; Grotevant, I983; Cooper, Grotevant and Condon, I984). Two theoretical explanations, based upon differing socialization processes, may account for parental influences on progressive identity development for adolescents. One process, based upon social learning, would suggest that through vicarious observational learning an adolescent may acquire the current denttty status modeled bv higher parents. While past rematch has found little evidence of similarity between fathers' and ~ons' identity formation (C. K. Waterman and Waterman, I97>),- it is theoretically plausible that a parental identity status provides a model for an adolescent in his or her identity formation. Therefore, the first objective of this investigation was to assess whether a parent's current identity status provides a model of development for the adolescent, such that more mature identity status parents would have, beyond chance, adolescents with equally mature identities. Another potential socialization process that may account for progressive 'dentit~~" development focuses upon the association between parent~hild relations~and identity formation. For example, symbolic interaction theory suggests that an adoles ent s identity is a function of the parent's reflected appraisal of the V. outh s perceived worth. Fu~her, such appraisals occur during the give-and-take of everyday parent-adole~ent interaction. Therein, certain parental socialization styles are thought to ~ conducive to identity formation. Past research would sugg~t that elements of interpersonal s u p ~ m or companionship, rejection, autonomy (or limited parental control) and expre~ions of physical affection are major dimensions of parental socialization styles that are fated with adole~ent identity formation. That is, pint correlational research suggests that a warm and positive vs. rejecting relationship (Douvan and Adelson, I966; Conger, I973), democratic parenting (Enright, Lapsley, D r i v ~ and Fehr, I98o), minimal " I976; Adams and Jones, I98I, I983;) restricdven~s in supew¢ision (La Vole, and ~ s s i b l y physi~l affection and companionship (el. Adams and Jon~, t983; Grotevant, i983) can enhance the likelihood of adol~cents acquiring

IDENTITY DE~ ELOPMENT 7x more mature identity statuses. A mature identity has been proposed to include such facets as the presence of commitments regarding goals, values and beliefs based upon the consideration of a range of identity alternatl'v es (Waterman, I982 ). Further, both moratorium and identity*achieved individuals are undergoing or have had extensive exploration in identifying unique and personally defined commitments; therefore, the notion of maturity in this study is associated with t h e e two identity statuses (i.e. moratorium and identity achievement statuses). Bourne (~t978) and W'aterman (i 98z) have correctly noted, however, that with few exceptions (e.g. Jordan, x97 x ; Matteson, I975; Cooperet aL, I984) past research on parental antecedents to ado!e~ent identity development has focused on the adolescent's appraisal of parental behavior while neglecting the parent" view of the childrearing relation. Therefore, it remains unclear as to whether differences between identity statuses on adolescents' perceptions of parental socialization styles are, in reality, congruent with parental perceptions. Thus, the second objective of this m : vesugauon " " w ~ to assess whether differences in parenting styles (as perceived by the adolescem and reported by the parents) are reflected in differenc~ in identity status formation. Drawing from two major reviews (Bourne, I978; Waterman, I98z ) and several studies using measures of perceived childrearing behavior (Jordan, I97x; Adams and Jones, i983) and in ~'ivo family interactions (Matte~n, I97"'~, Cooper et al., I984), it was hypothesized that (a) differenc~ in parental socialization styles between the noncrisis (diffusion and foreclosure) and crisis (moratorium and identity achievement) statuses would be reflected by both perceptions of the adolescents and their parents; (b) noncrisis status youths would experience more r~ection and withdrawal from their parents; while (c) the crisis group ould experience more support, companionship and affection from parents.

METHOD A total of I45 subjects were interviewed in this inv~tigation. The base sample consisted of 45 randomly drawn student names from a larger smmple of 294 subjects in a longitudinal research project on identity and ego development at Utah State University. Responses were obtained from the father, mother and the college-age daughter of each of the 45 families. Families came from 14 different states and two foreign countri 11were United Stat~ citizens. Originally 5 ° families were ~lected, but due to death (two families lost a parent) and unwillin~l~s to participate (three famili~), the final ~ m p l e was reduced to 45-

7:~

G.R. ADAMS tt~etnenls

Identi~, development The ective Measure of Eg~ldentity Status (OM-EIS; Adams, Shea and Fitch, t979) was used to assess identity development. The instrument consists of z 4 items that asses:s self-reported presence or absence of crisis and identified commitments to occupational, religious and political values. Subjects responded on a six-point Lik~rt scale for each item, with an overall raw score for the diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium and identity achieve. ment scal~. These four scales are used to derive an overall ideological identity status. Mean cut-off ~3ints reported by Adams et al. (I979) were used for categorizing all subjects in this study. Comparisons of mean scale scores for the adolescent, mother and father subsamples revealed nonsignificant mean differences with the original validation means. In the present study, the diffusion and foreclosure statuses are regarded as less mature identities due to the absence of extensive exploration or searching for a unique and self-selected identity. The identity status measures was developed during the early years of the Utah longitudinal project as an alternative to the more complex and time consuming inte~iew created by Marcia (z966). In four validation studies (Adams et aL, I979) test-retest reliabilities ranged from o-7~ to 0"93, internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of the four identity status scales ranged from o'67 to o'76, and concurrent and predictive validity was established between Marcia's incomplete sentence blank and interview me~ures (Adams, Ryan, Hoffman, Dobson and Nielsen, in press). Further, Adams et al. (i979) have reposed evidence of theoretical appropriate predictive validity with personality variables such as self-acceptance, rigidity and authoritarianism, while other investigations report predictive validity with social-cognitive measures of moral (Rosenkoetter, I984), cognitive (Skinner and Steel, i984) and ego development (Adams and Shea, I979). Other studies have established the predictive validity of the O IS with parental socialization styles (Adams and Jonc~, i983), differential social influence behavior (Read, Adams and Dobson, I984) and conformity behavior (Adams et aL, in pres~). In the original validation studies (Adams et aL, i979, studies 2 and 3) subjects ranged in age from 17 to 5I years, making the measure suitable for assessment of both adolescents and parents on ideological-based identity. Some concern has been expressed about the scoring rules that allow for two "ty of moratorium identity statuses (Adamset aL, x 979)- One rule results in a ~-called "pure" moratorium, while the second rule categorizes persons with low profile scores ~ also being in a moratorium status. "l~qesecond ~ l e was based on an empirical vs. conceptual decision, but cridcs have qu~tioned whether the second rule results in moratorium status persons.

IDENTITY

DE~,:ELOPME~ ; F

73

While recent research (Adams et aL, in press) has shown that low profile moratofums derived from the OM-EI S measure were primarily categorized (7o per cent or more) as being in the moratorium status generated from the Eg~Identity Inte~iew (Marcia, I966), and that across the four original validation studies (Adams et aL, I979)~o differenc~ were found between the pure and low profile moratorium statuses, recent research by Abraham (x983) has shown that, in a high school age population, significant differences were found betvceen the two statuses on a measure of externality. ~V l lore specifically, Abraham (I983) repots that the low profile moratorium adolescent is less external than the pure moratorium youth. Therefore, in this investigation diffusion and foreclosure statuses are collapsed into a noncHsis group, pure moratorium and identity achievement statuses are grouped into a crisis catego~,, and Io~, p subjects are treated separately. Past xesearch (Adams et aL, 1979) however su st that when further collapsing is needed due to sample size limitations the low profile individual, due to the classification as a moratorium by the Marcia (I966) interview assessment, and generally low external locus of control behavior (Abraham, z983) should be treated as a special but valid crisis eategou:. However, when po~ible lo~c p identity status subjects should be treated as a separate status until fu~her evidence establishes the empirical relation to other identity statuses. Parent-~lffld relatbgns Numerous measures of perceived parent~hitd relations exist. However, the three most widely used measures include the Parent~Ehild interaction Rating Scale (Heilbrun, i964, I973), the Comell Parent Behavior Description (Bronfenbrenner, x96I ; Devereux, Bronfenbrenner and Rodgers, i969) and the Parent Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, I965). A recent factor analysis of the three scales (Ellis, Thomas and Rollins, z976) indicates the items are assessing five dimensions of parent-~hild relations. Based upon this analysis, items that loaded 0"40 or higher were included in this study to me~ure the dimensions of rejection-~ontroI, companionship, physical affection, withdrawal and support. Thirty-eight items were included to measure the five dimensions with responses obtained on a five-point Likert scale. Reliabiiities of internal consistency (alphas)were reported by Elliset al. (z976) as ranging from 0"85 to o'gz. In the present study, internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0-83 to o"94 across the five subscales. Split-half reliabilities in the presem study ranged from o"83 to 0-94. Recent rch studies in our longitudinal p have shown that the five scales are useful in predicting tire role-taking behaviour (Adams, Jon~, Schvanevddt and Jenson, I982 ) and self-consciousness (Adams and Jones, !982). Examples of items include the following: ion-.control (n = z4) (e.g. My father often complains about what I do; My mother tells me how I should behave);

74

G.R.

ADAMS

companionship (n = i3) (e.g. My father likes to talk and be with me; My mother on trips and visits with me); ical t (n = 6) (e.g. My father believes in showing love for me; My mother hugs and kisses me often);

withdra~l (n = 5) (e.g. My father will not talk to me when I displease him; My mother avoids looking at me when disappointed); and sul~pot~ (~n = 6) (e.g. My father trusts me; My mother is interested and supports me). Six items load on two of the five scales.

Procedure All family members were originally contracted by postcard and solicited for further involvement in the longitudinal program. Families with all three participants agreeing to respond were interviewed by phone with the aid of mailed questionnaires to assist them in answering the questions. Mothers, fathers and daughters responded to all three measures. On the childreafing measures mothers and fathers reported perceptions of their own parenting styles, while daughters provided perceptions for both maternal and paternal behaviors.

RESULTS

~sociation between pm~nt-child perceptions Data were gathered from daughter, mother and father on parent-child relations. Such data provide the opportunity to a~se~ the de~ee to which daughters and parents perceive a similar childrearing family environment. Therefore, prior to testing the hypotheses a series of correlational analyses were computed between daughters' and parents' perceptions. In general, the daughters' perception of their father's and mo t hers' behavior held a very modest a~ociation with how the parents vie-~,ed their own conduct. For fathers, the correlation between daugh t er ' s perceptions and father's self-reported behavior ranged from 0"08 to o.2o (all n.s.) across the five childrearing dimensions. For mothers, the correlation ranged from o'o 4 to o'40. A significant correlation was found between daughter's perceptions and mother's self-repo~ on the physical affection (r = o.4o, P < o'o5) and withdrawal subscales (r = o-25, P < 0-05). These data indicate there was only a modest relationship between the adole~ent's perceptions and how mother and father repo~ their own conduct. However, further analy~s indicate that the adolescent's ~rception of mother's behavior is moderately con~uent with her perceptions of father's" conduct. That is, correlations of the adoI~cent's perceptions" of mother's and father's

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 75 childrearing behavior were significant (Ps < o.o5) a c r e s all five childreafng dimensions: rejection (r =o-43 ), companionship (r = o-34 ), physical affection (r = o-35), withdrawal (r = 0"48) and support (r = o-sI). A final series of correlations suggest the congruence between perceptions of mother's and father's behavior is warranted. When correlations were computed between mother's and father's self-reported childrearing conduct a pattern of significant ~sociations (Ps < o'o5) were found for all five chitdreafing dimensions: rejection (r = o'57), companionship (r = o'5o ), physical affection (r = o'4z), withdrawal (r = o.34) and support (r = 0-54 ). Collectively, these data suggest that while the adolescents' ~rception ~f their parents' behavior is at best very modestly correlated with what parents report they actually do, adolescents do perceive their mother and father as behaving in a veD" similar manner. Further, corr~ations between how mothers and fathers report their own "actual" behavior sugg~ts their childrearing conduct is moderately congruent. While the perceptions of mothers and fathers behavior were correlated, given the low correlations with the parents' actual reported conduct, it w ~ judged appropriate to examine the adolescent's perception of mother's and father's conduct in separate analy~s. The moderately significant correlations between parents' self-reported chitdrearing behavior suggests relative congruence in parental behaviors, however, analyses based on an aggr~ated parental score could mask important but subtle differenc~ in maternal vs. paternal self-report behaviors. Therefore, analyses on parental self-repo~ data were also compacted separately for fathers and mothers.

Social leanzh

ntification h?¢t~othesis

The first objective of this investigation was to assess whether a parent's current identity status might provide a model for the adolescent's identity formation. While a parent's identity as a fluid developmental construct is zkely to have changed several times during the coupe of rearing a child, the most current psyeholo~cal manifestation should be a good indicator of the most salient role model for the adolescent. Table i provides a de~zriptive s u m m a ~ of the relationship bet,xeen m o t h e r ' , fathers' and daughters" identity statuses. Due to limited cell sizes the low profile statu- ses were collapsed into the more mature identity status group for purposes of analy~s. Justification for this procedure was pr~ented earlier. As Table 2 summarizes, chi-square analyses indicate that less mature identity format~n parents were no more or le~ likely to have children who were more mature in their identity. However, more mature mothers and fathers were found to have s i ~ g i c a n t l y more mature identity status daughters (Ps < o-o!).

76

G . R . ADAMS

T a b l e 1. Desctipthw relationships between mother's, father$ and daug tters identity status

Daughter's identity status Parent Mother

Identity status

Diffusion foreclosure

Low profile status

Moratorium! achievement 3

Diffusion/foreclosure Low profile Moratorium/achievement

5

5

z

13

5

3

4

5

Father

Diffusiordforeelosure Low profile Moratoriumfachieveme nt

5 3 z

7 I3 z

3 7 3

Total

Di ffusion/foreclosure Low profile Moratorium/achievement

to 5 5

tz z6 6

6 tz 8

T a b l e 2. A~sociattbn between dau~tem" and parents" l ~ l of identity matu~ty Level of maturity for daughter (per cent) L~s

More

Z~

~ (3 ~) 5 ( t 5"6)

8(6, z) z7 (84"4)

0'7 ° I 5" I z*

5 (33"3) 5 (x6"7)

to (66-7) a5 (83"3)

i-66 x3'34"

to (35"7) to (16" t)

x8 (64"3) 5z (83"9)

2"z8 z8"46"

Mother Lessmature More mature

Fatb,er ~ s mature ?,lore mature

Total Less mature More mature

Le~ mature = diffusion plus f~eclosure; more mature ~ low profile, moratorium and identity achievement, • Denot~ P < o-o~.

P a r e n t a l soc4ahzation so, le

theses

P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has s h o w n t h a t p a r e n ild relations d i f f e r b e t w e e n adolescents with varying identity status ation. H o w e v e r , m o s t s t u d i e s h a v e exclusively o b t a i n e d p e r c e p t i o n r e s p o n s e s f r o m adolescents. I n the present study data were obtained from mothers, fathers and daughters.

I D E N T I T Y DE ' E L O P M E N T

77

One-way analyses of variance were computed to compare the three identity statuses of adolescent daughters on the five dimensions of childrearing for mOthers and father's reported conduct and daughter's perceptions of maternal and paternal behaviors, Simple effects were computed throughout this study using Newman-Keuls individual comparisons (Ps < o'o5). Differences between the three daughters' identity status groups revealed five si~ificant findings on the adolescent's v.rcention of maternal and paternal conduct. Significant mean differences reported in Table 3 indicate that the noncrisis ~ o u p (diffusion/foreclosure statuses) perceive significantly more rejection from both mother and father, with the low profile group perceiving the least maternal rejection. In comparison, the low profile and crisis groups (moratorium and identity achievement) perceived significantly more companionship, physical affection and support from their fathers than did the noncrisis identity formation youths. Several corroborating findings were observed for differences between the daughters' identity status and their perceptions of parental conduct with parental repots of personal ehildrearing behavior. A comparison of the daughters' identity status group on the rejection-~ontrol items revealed significant status differences for father' [F(~,~)" = 3"99, P < o'o~]- and mothers' [F ( 2 , ~ ) = 4"o7, P < o'o5] self-reported behaviors. For both parents, noncrisis identity status daughters expe6enced significantly more rejection~ontrol than either the low profile or crisis status groups. On the maternal self'report measures of companionship IF ( , ~ ) = 4-z6, P < o-o5], noncrisis and low profile daughters experienced least and crisis status daughters the most companionship with mothers. Finally, on father' Significant dtfferences ~tween daughter's identity statuses and ~,veived maternal and paternal childreaID~ relations

T a b l e 3.

D a u g h t e F s identity statuses

Childrearing dimension .

....

_

M other's rejection , Father's rejection Father's c o m p a n i o n s h i p Father's physical a[fection Father's s u p p o a ~:~::~7~:~

:~

Noncrisis

moratorium

Crisis

F

25 - ~ * 26-4o a 3 I"5 c~

2 ," 54 b 22"~ b 34"o9 b

23"9 z~ 23"3 ib 34" rob

3" 17 3~78 3" * 6

*z ~zoa .9"5 oa

'5"45 h

za'96b

I5~47 b zz'46b

3"5t 3"93

×

:~V-~:~;'-~"~"

~V,:/--~

~:-~/-~

~ 7~-:--~Z~::-~.~:;~:..:~:~V~

:~

..................... : : ~ : ~ : : : : ~ V : : : ~ : : ~ , - . , - / : ~ : ; : ' - - : ~ . ; /

~ ~--~:~:~::~:~::~:~;

:~:~:~:V~"~:~.~-~

~ ~ ~ -

Degreos of freedom for all F t¢~ts were 2 , ~ with P~s < o*o5; means sharing a common su~2~.~efipt are not si~ifieantIy different f ~ m each other.

78 G.R. ADAMS self-report of withdrawal [ F ( z , ~ ) = 5" t9, P < o'o5], noncrisis daughters (tl4 = I6"z3) were more likely to have fathers who withdrew than were low profile (M = 6"5i ) or crisis status (M = 5.32) youths. In that more mature identity status parents were likely to have mature identity status daughters (see Table z), the last series of data analyses addressed the possibility that the more mature (crisis identity status) parents might have p r o V:lded parental childrearing behaviors that enhanced an identification process. A significant difference between the identity statuses [ P ( , ~ ) = 4"oz, P < o'o5] indicates that according to the perception of daughters, noncrisis fathers (M = z6"84) were perceived as being significantly more rejecting than low profile (M = zz' 17) or crisis identity status fathers (M = zz-95 ). A marginally significant (P < 0"07) finding was observed on self-reported support by fathers suggesting a trend towm,d crisis identity and low profile fathem as perceiving the ~seLes as more supportive than noncrisis identity fathers. No other trend or significant findings were ob~rved on fathers' self-reported or daughters' perception of their fathers' behavior as a function of fathers' identity status. A significant difference between the identity statusc~ for mothers IF(z,44) = 3"39, P < 0"05] revealed that in the perception of daughters, noncrisis mothers (M = 7-4 I) were more withdrawn than were low profile (M = 5-6z)and crisis identity status mothers 0 I = 6"4I ). On self-reported childrearing behavior, nonerisis mothers (3I = I6"38 ) , were significantly less likely [F(z,44 ) = 3"69, P < 0"05] to express physical affection toward their daughters than were low profile (M = x9'6o ) or crisis identity status mothers (M = x8"99). Finally, crisis identity status mothers (M = z4-Io ) were more supportive of their daughters [ ( z , ~ ) = 3-26, P < 0-05] than were nonerisis identity status mothers (:'tl = zo'95 ). Low profile and identity status m o t h e ~ did not significantly differ in their self-reported supportiveness of daughters.

DISCUSSI( N The first objective of this investigation was to ass'ess a social lea.rmng" identification hypothesis underlying adolescent identity formation. Data in Table i and e support the hypothesis that a parent's level of identity formation provides a standard of development for adolescent daughters. However, some caution must be taken in interpreting these data. T h e evidence would suggest that lower l.veesq~of parental identity formation arc unpredictive of an adolescent daughter's identity development. Therefore, a female adolescent may be just as likely as not to develop a mature identity status if her parents have low identity statuses. Nonetheless, the evidence

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

79

strongly indicates that mothers and fathers who are mature in their identity status formation are very likely to have daughters who develop equally mature identities. Such findings suggest that moratorium and identity achievement parents are likely to provide, through their role modeling behavior, a standard for their daughter's possible emulation. Further research is needed to discover how such modeling behavior occurs and how the display of such standards, when expressed, result in a high probability of emulation. Direct observation studies would be useful in further investigations of modeling effects. The second objective of this study was to examine whether predictions from symbolic interaction theory could be observed through significant differences in parenting styles. Several findings would support the notion that both perceived and "actual" parental behaviors occur in the homes of late adolescents that can enhance or retard mature identity status formation of daughters. Let us review the major findin~ supporting this conclusion. Perhaps the strongest overall finding is that diffused and t%reclosed daughters not only perceived more rejection and control by their mother and father but, according to the reports of parents, also experienced more rejection. Further, noncrisis daughters were more likely to have withdrawn fathers and less companionship experiences with their mothers. One can speculate that the experience of such rejection and withdrawal ~sults in the internalization of poor self-concepts and contributes to a restricted attempt to explore life choices and opportunities. On the positive side, moratorium- and identity-achieved daughters perceived their father as highly involved and supportive of them. That is, for both the low profile and the crisis groups, fathers were seen as being significantly more supportive, affectionate and involved (through companionship) with their adolescents than were fathers of the noncrisis identity group comparison. Other important evidence suggests that a combination of role modeling, identification procevses, and possible internalization of reflected appraisals of perceived self-worth contribute to the adolescent's identity fo~nation. Given that more mature identity status parents were observed to have significantly more mature identity status daughters, we looked for fu~her evidence that the parental childrearing conduct of more mature identity status parents would reflect more positixm and enhancing behavior. We found that crisis identity status fathers (a trend only) and mothers were perceived as being supportive of their daughters. Conversely, noncfisis identity status fathers were perceived by adolescent daughters to be more rejecting, while noncrisis mothers were perceived to be withdrawn from their relationship with their daughters. Likewise, noncfisis identity mothers were significantly less affectionate with their daughters.These findings su much can be gained by studying relationship between an adolescent~ identity status and the

80 G.R. ADAMS family environment, while exploring the mediating effects of the parent's own identity status formation° It appears that perceived parental rejection and support not only differentiate the identity status formation of adolescents, but may also be strong behavioral childrearing correlates of parental identity status formation. There is one final noteworthy result emerging from these data. Some concern has been expressed about the utility and/or meaning of the low profile identity status group. In most past studies using the O M - E ! S this group has been collapsed into the "pure" moratorium group. This practice has resulted in certain ambiguities about potential similarities or differences between the two identity status groups. In the present investigation the findings generally confirm those of prior studies (e.g. Adams et al., z979; Abraham, I983) and demonstrate that while certain differences may occur between the low profile and crisis identity groups, the former group, at least from an empirical perspective, appears m o ~ similar than different from the latter. We believe, h er, that in future research it would be useful to examine potential empirical differences between low profile and "pu~z" moratorium status groups. In conclusion, our data s st a combination of both social learning and symbolic interaction socialization proce~es account for the family's contribution to female adolescent's identity development. Our findings, like those published in the past, su t that on the positive side, moratorium and identity achievement adolescents are likely to perceive and experience a highly involved and emotionally supportive family environment. I n contrast, noncrisis diffused and foreclosed adolescents are more likely to perceive and experience a highly rejecting and controlling parental socialization environment. While cause-and-effect cannot be determined from t h e ~ data, we might speculate that interpersonally supportive parent-child relations are important contributors to progressive movement toward identity achievement, while highly rejecting and controlling parents are likely to restrict or retard an adolescent~ exploration of identity choices in political, religious and occupational commitments. Such findings are supportive,of others' work (e.g. Grotevant, t983; Cooper et aL, I984) and provide, within a social learning and symbolic interactionist f r a m e ~ r k , direction for hypothesis testing of potential cause-and-effect relations between parental behaviors and adolescent's identity status development. This research was supported by funding from the Division of Research, Utah State University and the W I ~ Regional Project on "The Development of Social Competency in Children", funded by the Science/Education Administration! Cooperative Re.arch of The United States Depa~ment of Agriculture and the Utah State cultural Experiment Station.

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

8~

We are thankful to Steven Fitch and Joan Wareham for their ~ i s t a n c e in data collection and analysis and to Harold Grotevant and Raymond Montemavor for constructive criticism of an earlier draft of this report

REFERENCES Abraham, K. G. (x983). The relation between identity status and I~us of controt among rural high ~hool students, ffountal ofEart'y A nee 3, 257-z64. Adams, G. R. and Fitch, S. A. (z98z). Ego stage and identity status development: a cro~-sequentiai analysis. Jountal of nality at~ 5~cial 1o~, 43, 574-583 . Adams, G. R. and Fitch, S. A. (I983). Psychological environments of university departments: effects on college students' identity status and ego stage development. ffournal of ality ¢~ut 44, zz6~Iz75. Adams, G. R. and Jones, R. M. (z98I). Female adolescents' ego development: age comparisons and childrearing perceptions.Jountatt~ftz~rlyA nee 1, 423-426. Adams, G. R. and Jones, R. M. (I98z). Adolescent egocentfsm: exploration into ~ s i b l e contributions of parent~hild relations. Jottnlal of ~Juth and Adolescence 11, 25-3x. Adams, G. R. and Jones, R. M. (I983). Female adolescents' identity development: age comparisons and perceived childrearing experience. Dev ntal ology 19, Adams, G. R. and Shea, J. A. (z979). The relationship betw~n identity status, lc~us of control, and ego development. Jou1~lat of ~buth and Adolesce~we 8, 8z-89. Adams, G. R., Shea, J. and Fitch, S. A. (I979). Toward the development of an objective assessment of eg~identity status, ffountal of ~buth and Adolescence 8, 223-237. Adams, G. R., Jones, R. M., Sehvaneveldt, J. D. and Jenson, G. O. (~98z). Ant~edents of affective role-taking behavior: adolescent perceptions of parental socialization styles. Jounlal of Adolescence 5, 25t~z65 . Adams, G. R., Ryan, J. H., Hoffman, J. J., Dobson, W. R. and Nielsen, E. C. (In Pre~). identity status, confo~ity behavior and personality in late adolescence. Journal of" alily attd Bourne, E. (1978). The state of research on ego identity: a review and appraisa L 1 of Sbuth and Adolescence 7, 223-zSZ. Bronfenbrenner, U. (~96t). Some familial antecedents of res~nsibility and leadership in adolescents. In rship attd lnte hal ~.ior; Petrullo, L. and Ba~, B. L. (Eds). New York: Rineha~ and Winston. Conger, J. J. (z973)..Adolescence attd }buth. New York: Harper and Row. Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D~ and Condon, S. M. (~984). Individuality and connectedness: both foster adole~ent identity formation and role-taking skills. In Adolescent De t in the l;~7~ly. New far CTtild t, Grotevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R. (Eds). San F r a n r ~ o : Jossey-Bass. Devereux, E., Bronfenbrenner, U. and Rodge~, R. R. (i969). Childbearing in England and the United States: a cro~-national comparison. Journal of 3 and the 31, z57-27o. Douvan, E. and Adelson, J. ( l ~ ) . The cent nee. New York: BAler. Ellis, G. J., Thomas, D. L. and Rollins, B. C. (x976). Measuring parental support: the interrelationship of three measures, ffoten:al of 31am'age a~nd the 38, 7z3-7zz.

82 G.R. ADAMS Enright, R. D., Lapsley, I). K.,Drivas, A. E. and Fehr, 1,. A° (~98o). Pare~tal influences on the adolescent autonomy and identity. Journal ~ $buth anti Ado&scence 9, Enright, R. D., Game e, D. M., Buss, R. R., La~Mev, D. K. and Olson, I,. Al. (!983). Promoting identity development in adolcsce cc. Journal of l:.),dr Ado&scence 3, ,

~

~ ~ ~

Erikson, E. H. (x956)~ "File problem of ego identi D . Jounml ,~" the Amelfi'an l~sychoanalytic :~sot iation 4, 5 ~ I z t . E tkson, E. II. (z959). Identity and the life cycle. Psrchologica! lsst, es i, 1-I7I. Grotevant, 1I. D. (z983). The contribution of tile family to the facilitation of identity formation in early adolescence. Journal qfEarly Ado&scence 3, 2z5-z38. Ifeilbrun, A. B. (I964). Parent model attributes, nurturant remfocement and consistency of behavior in adolescents. ('hdd D~v, lopment 35, 15 z-i 67. lleilbrun, A. B. (x973). At~rsive Material ( o m o h A 77worn of Sddzophtenh Development. New "~o k: Acade ntc. Jordan, D. (i97!). Parental antecede its and personality characteristics of ego identity statuses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. JosseI~m, R. L. (i973). Psychodynamic aspects of identity formation in college women. ffou~Tml of ~buth and Adolescx.nce 2, 3-52. LaVoie, J, C. (x976). Ego identity formation in rmddle adolc~cenc~.~mmdof

~ut ~and

Adulescem=e 5, 371-386. Marcia, J. E. (z966). De elopment and validation of ego identity status. Jomnal of Personality and ~ctai t ~yt,41olo~3"3, 551-558" Marcia, J. E. (I976). Identity six years after: a follow-up study. Journal ~r ~buth and Adolest\~nce 5, ~45~ ~"o. Marcia, J. E. (198o). Identity in adolesce ce. In !land&ink of Adolescent l~ychol~t,O', delson, J. (Ed.). New York: Wiley and Sons. Matteson, D. R. (I975). Ado&scence ~ea3, Sex Roh,s and the :%,archfor t~tentitr. Homew~md, IL" Dorsev Press. Read, D., Adams, G. R. and Dobson, W. R. (~984). Eg~identitv status, t ersonahty and sociaIi nfluence" style. . ~gumal of Personality and .'g'~ml " "" 1~"" ~3~holog3 ' " 46, i6~i 77~ Rosenkoetter, , • ' a theoretical and L. (z984, Marcia). Moral and identity de, v .elopment empirical relationship. Current theory and research in s~mial and emotional development during adol~cence and adulthood [J. L. Tramill (Chair)]. Symposium conducted at the meetings of the Southwesteru Society for Research in Human Development, Denver, CO. Schaefer, E. (96:0. Children~ report of parental behavior: an inventory~ ('hiM I)evelopnlent 36, 413-424 . Skinner, P. and Stee 1e," C. (I984, March). Formal operational thought and ego identity development in late adole~ence and early adulthood. Paper p r esented at the meeting of the Southw~tern ~ : i e t y for Research in t luman Development, Denver, CO. Waterman, A. S. (~98z). Identity development from adolescence to adulth~d: an extension of theory and a review of r~earch. DevelopmentaIPsyeholo~" 18, 34~-358. Waterman, A. S. and Goldman, J. A. (!976). A longitudinal study of ego identity developm~t at a liberal arts college. )Smma/ of Ibuth mtd Adolescence 5, 361-37o. Waterman, C. K. and Waterman, A. S. (~975). Fathers and sons: a study of ego identity acro~ two generations. Journal of }buth and Adolescence 4, 33~-338.